NYC’s Museum of Modern Art owns sixteen Piet Mondrian oil paintings, the most comprehensive collection in North America. From this starting point, conservator Cynthia Albertson and research scientist Ana Martins embarked on an impressive project, both in breadth and in consequence—an in-depth technical examination across all sixteen Mondrians. All examined paintings are fully documented, and the primary preservation goal is returning the artwork to the artist’s intended state. Paint instability in the artist’s later paintings will also be treated with insight from the technical examination.
The initial scope of the project focused on nondestructive analysis of MoMA’s sixteen oil paintings. As more questions arose, other collections and museum conservators were called upon to provide information on their Mondrians. Over 200 other paintings were consulted over the course of the project. Of special importance to the conservators were untreated Mondrians, as they could help answer questions about the artist’s original varnish choices and artist-modified frames. Mondrian’s technique of reworking areas of his own paintings was also under scrutiny, as it called into question whether newer paint on a canvas was his, or a restorer’s overpaint. Fortunately, the MoMA research team had a variety of technology at their disposal: X-Radiography, Reflectance Transformation Imaging, and X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) spectroscopy and XRF mapping were all tools referenced in the presentation.
The lecture discussed three paintings to provide an example of how preservation issues were addressed and how the research process revealed information on unstable paint layers in later Mondrian paintings. The paintings were Tableau no. 2 / Composition no. V (1914), Composition with Color Planes 5 (1917), and Composition C (1920), but for demonstration’s sake only the analysis of the earliest painting will be used as an example here.
Tableau no. 2 / Composition no. V (1914) was on a stretcher that was too thick, wax-lined, covered in a thick, glossy varnish, and had corrosion products along the tacking edges. Research identified the corrosion as accretions from a gold frame that the artist added for an exhibition. The painting has some obviously reworked areas, distinguished by dramatic variations in texture, and a painted-over signature; these changes are visible in the technical analysis. The same research that identified the source of the corrosion also explained that Mondrian reworked and resigned the painting for the exhibition. XRF mapping of the pigments, fillers, and additives provided an early baseline of materials to compare later works to, as the paint here did not exhibit the cracking of later examples. Ultimately, the restorer’s varnish was removed to return the paint surface to its intended matte appearance, and the wax lining was mechanically separated from the canvas with a specially produced Teflon spatula. Composition no. V (1914) was then strip-lined, and re-stretched to a more appropriate-width stretcher.
It is possible to create a timeline of Mondrian’s working methods with information gleaned from the technical examination of all three paintings. His technique had evolved from an overall matte surface, to variations in varnish glossiness between painted areas. XRF analysis demonstrated a shift in his palette, with the addition of vermillion, cobalt, and cadmium red in his later works. XRF also revealed that the artist used registration lines of zinc and lead whites mixed together and used on their own. Knowing the chemical composition of Mondrian’s paint is vital to understanding the nature of the cracking media and identifying techniques to preserve it.
The underpinning of all this research is documentation. This means both accounting for un-documented or poorly documented past restorations, as well as elaborating upon existing references. Many of the MoMA paintings had minimal photographic documentation, which hinders the ability of conservators to identify changes to the work over time. The wealth of information gathered by the conservation and research team remains within the museum’s internal database, but there are plans to expand access to the project’s data. Having already worked in collaboration with many Dutch museums for access to their Mondrian collections, it’s clear to the MoMA team how a compiled database of all their research and documentation would be groundbreaking for the conservation and art history fields.
Category: Specialties
42nd Annual Meeting – Paintings , May 30, “The Pied Piper of Hamlin: Color and Light in Maxfield Parrish in the Palace Hotel, San Francisco” by Harriet Irgang Alden, Director/Senior Paintings Conservator, ArtCareNYC/A Rustin Levenson Company
In the spring of 2013, San Franciscans were outraged to discover that a cherished Maxfield Parrish wall painting had been removed from its home in the Palace Hotel and sent to New York to be sold. Prior to auction, it was to be cleaned of the hundred-plus years of accumulated grime and accretions it had been subjected to while hanging in The Pied Piper Bar. Thus, even after the Palace Hotel had acquiesced to public sentiment and agreed to return it to San Francisco, the painting remained in New York to be treated.
Harriet Irgang Alden, of Rustin Levenson Art Conservation Associates, had experience with other Parrish wall paintings, and knew the treatment concerns that were inherent to his working methods. The artist alternated thin transparent glazes of brilliant, unmixed pigments with saturating layers of varnish. This made the removal of a restorer’s varnish on a Parrish painting a fraught process that is typically not undertaken, because of the likelihood of disrupting the original layers. The planned treatment outcome only focused on grime removal. The immediate uniqueness of this Parrish wall painting was in the details of its construction. Despite its substantial size at 5 feet by 16 feet, the Pied Piper was not painted in sections, as Parrish’s other wall paintings were. The painting appeared to have been shipped rolled from the artist’s studio to San Francisco, where a stretcher was constructed for it—possibly of redwood due to the incredible length of the members. Additionally, the back of the original canvas remained visible, and displayed a ticking pattern similar to the canvas used for an 1895 Old King Cole painting. The unlined canvas, as well as the unique stretcher, provides new material evidence of Parrish’s working methods.
Unlike previous Parrish treatments, grime removal on the Pied Piper had revealed a broken varnish layer. Apart from thick brush drips and a pockmarked appearance, there were passages of flaking, which curiously did not reveal dull, unvarnished paint beneath. Instead, beneath the discolored upper varnish there appeared to be a clear, glossy layer of a different varnish, and beneath that were the brilliant blues typical to Parrish’s paintings. FTIR analysis at the Museum of Modern Art in New York verified that there were two distinct varnishes: the crumbling upper layer was an alkyd, and the lower a decolorized shellac. Alkyds like this alcohol-acid polymer were not produced prior to the 1920’s, so they could not have been original to Parrish’s 1909 Pied Piper. The decolorized shellac was stable and was still firmly adhered to the paint beneath. Both original layers had actually been protected from UV and bar patron damage by the alkyd addition.
After an aqueous cleaning removed the grime layer, the conservators were faced with an exciting prospect: could they remove the restorer’s varnish, and in doing so, reveal a pristine Maxfield Parrish painting? Solvents would penetrate through both layers and affect the pigment. A more complex process was tested: methyl cellulose in water was applied, and removed after five to ten minutes, to soften the alkyd layer. Though in initial attempts a scalpel was used, the conservators found that the softened alkyd varnish would lift easily and safely by being pulled up with tape using the ‘Texas Strappo’ method. This technique was successful, and revealed a brilliant and unharmed original varnish layer, but it was also incredibly time consuming.
The Palace Hotel declined to extend the treatment of the Pied Piper to include a months-long varnish removal. The alkyd removal test area was toned to blend back in, the painting was varnished with Regalrez, and the Pied Piper returned home. The non-original alkyd varnish remains, still degrading, but it continues to protect the pristine painting and original varnish beneath. In the future, it will be possible to remove the new Regalrez varnish with naphtha, which does not affect the original shellac varnish. It will also be possible to remove the alkyd layer with the solvent and mechanical methods outlined in the test, and revarnish with Regalrez, and possibly a UV stabilizer. Maxfield Parrish’s vibrant original may not be fully unveiled, but until then, the beloved painting is safely on display.
42nd Annual Meeting- WAG Session, May 31, “Lost for One Hundred Years: The Conservation of a Unique Polychrome Neoclassical Pulpit in Upstate New York” by Alexander M. Carlisle
Alex Carlisle presented a fascinating and detailed treatment of the pulpit in Fort Herkimer Church, German Flatts, New York (http://fortherkimerchurch.org/7.html). The church has a long history; the current structure dates to 1767, with many additions and expansion in war and peacetime. The pulpit was added in the early 19th century, and seems to be completely unique; it is made from white pine, but nothing is known about the workshop.
During a recent, major renovation of the church, white paint coating the pulpit was partially sanded off and discovered to be covering polychrome decoration. At this point, Carlisle was asked to work on the project, to remove the remaining white overpaint and preserve the original polychrome layer. At least one coat of white paint was lead-based, and very intractable; the majority of this was mechanically removed. Fortunately an older resin coating layer was present, and the lead white paint tended to cleave off at the interface.
Once the white overpaint was removed, the remaining original surfaces were consolidated and coated with a barrier layer. Losses in the polychrome ornament were inpainted to re-create the original decorative effect. So far the base and main section of the pulpit have successfully been treated; the canopy awaits funding to complete the project (keep an eye out for part 3!)
42nd Annual Meeting- WAG Session, May 29, “What Lay Beneath – Revealing the Original Exuberant Painted Decoration of an 18th century Painted Pennsylvania German Shrank” by Scott Nolley and Kathy Gillis
Nolley and Gillis treated a 17th century Pennsylvania German shrank which is a rare example with surviving original painted finish including faux burl wood graining and colorful decorative ornaments.
Shrank is a German word for wardrobe; many such cabinets were made in America by immigrants, using locally available woods. As with other types of furniture, these would sometimes have been faux painted to imitate a fancier wood with more elaborate carving or decoration; grain painting was a common decorative technique. Due to their utilitarian nature, original finishes on early examples seldom survive.
Cross-section analysis showed that the Chipstone shrank did have original paint, but with large areas compromised by fire damage and wear from use. This led to the initial overpainting in the early 19th century, followed by several consecutive paint treatments over the years, including an opaque, gray-blue colored casein based paint. This gray-blue layer proved to be very intractable, particularly over areas that were burned or highly worn. Cleaning solutions with chelators were able to remove the majority; agar gel was used for local cleaning around sensitive areas. Older oil-based coating layers actually acted as a resist to prevent the cleaning from going too far.
Completed with varnishing, waxing, and selective inpainting, the treatment was able to successfully expose original decoration and give a sense of the shrank’s intended appearance.
42nd Annual Meeting- WAG Session, May 29, “Roccoco Drama – Dry Ice Cleaning the Ormolu Mounts of the Augustus Rex Writing Cabinet” by Catherine Coueignoux
Catherine Coueignoux presented an exciting treatment of the Augustus Rex (c.1750) writing cabinet in the collection of the Victoria & Albert Museum (W.63-1977 http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O74665/writing-cabinet-kimmel-michael/# )
The elaborate ormolu mounts had been previously re-gilded. Before treatment were coated with a thick layer of dirt and dust over a shoe polish-like wax treatment, which was possibly added to dull the appearance of the bright new gilding. All other metal components were corroded, and the wood and marquetry had all been stripped and refinished. Curators wished the treatment to result in a bright, nearly-new appearance as it may have looked when newly restored (the previous refinishing and regilding probably occurred while owned by the Rothschild family).
Spotty corrosion on metal components that could not be removed was treated locally where possible. EDTA gel and BCA gels were tested but unsatisfactory- cleaning not enough, or too well. Coueignoux was able to use rottenstone to spot clean dark areas, leaving a layer of light corrosion sympathetic to surrounding areas. In some places, the corrosion spots were left untreated.
The removable ormolu mounts were cleaned using dry ice pellets, a new method for the lab. Their system uses a block of CO2 dry ice which is shaved into pellets and sprayed onto the surface of the object using an air compressor with a custom nozzle. The CO2 pellets expand on contact, providing a gentle mechanical cleaning. By moving quickly along the surface, they were able to avoid excessive cooling that would result in condensation. Acetone and a hairdryer were on hand to remove any condensation that did form. Other labs using CO2 cleaning include the Getty and the Smithsonian.
In the case of the ormolu mounts, CO2 cleaning was fast, safe and effective and removing the unwanted wax and dirt- 150 mounts were cleaned in only seven hours! Obviously this method is not appropriate for many objects and materials, but may be a convenient choice for more conservators in the future.
42nd Annual Meeting- OSG + RATS Session, May 30, “Blue, Red, and Wound All Over: Evaluating Condition Changes and Cleaning of Glass Disease on Beads” by Robin O’Hern and Kelly McHugh
Glass disease, weeping glass, glass deterioration, funky glass* (*author’s description)–just a few of the many names used to describe the degradation of glass beads that museums have observed as a white precipitate/cloudy appearance and/or cracking and splitting. If you’ve observed this in your collection, take notice- Mellon Fellow in Objects Conservation, Robin O’Hern, is on the case.
O’Hern has taken advantage of the history of glass disease detection at the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) and begun evaluating how the different cleaning methods have fared over the years. In 1999, Kelly McHugh (research supervisor and co-author) and Scott Carrlee performed a condition survey of the NMAI collection. The collection was moved into a state-of-the-art storage facility after the survey, where the RH has remained constant, but at a higher level than recommended for glass pieces. (The beads are present on composite pieces with hide, bone, shell, feather, hair, etc. and therefore the environmental controls must address as many materials as possible, not just glass.) Some of the pieces were treated at that time, and others have been treated in the interim years. Using the museum database, O’Hern found that 25% of the condition records that list glass beads as a material also list glass disease. O’Hern has performed another survey, this time seeking to observe condition changes over the past 15 years in a selection of objects from the 1999 survey, to assess treatment technique (ie, which solvents worked best to reduce glass disease), and to discover susceptibility trends (which beads are the worst culprits).
To understand the beads, O’Hern provided background on history of use and manufacture.
- Glass beads arrived after contact with Europeans in 1492
- Pony beads were introduced after 1675
- Wound beads were introduced after the late 17th century
- Seed beads were introduced 1710-1840
- Red beads were colored from copper in the 17th century, ruby red in the early 18th century, and selenium in the 1890’s
- Blue beads were colored from copper or cobalt, but from 1640-1700, they were tin-rich
- Beads can be made by pulling the heated glass, called “drawn,” or by winding heated glass around a rod, called “wound”
- Glass is made from silica, alkali (to lower the melting point, but also makes it water soluble), and calcium carbonate (that turns to lime- it’s added to help stabilize the glass after the alkali)
There are several explanations for the cause of glass disease. Too little or too much of the lime (part of the bead’s composition) may cause water to leach out of the glass matrix as ions that then form salt on the surface of the bead. The environmental conditions, such as fluctuations in RH, or materials in proximity, such as semi-tanned hide, may accelerate glass disease. As seen from the list above, the beads were manufactured over a range of time, in different ways, and in different places.
As you can tell, there are many factors to research when evaluating glass disease. O’Hern addressed as many as possible while still managing the scope of the project.
Survey Results
Condition Change: By comparing condition of the beads today to past condition/treatment reports, 16% of the beads have more deterioration now than in 1999. Measuring pH was used in addition to visual examination to determine condition. Some beads that did not look bad had a higher pH (above 7), signaling glass disease. Some beads that looked hazy did not have a higher pH, meaning no glass disease (perhaps hazy from manufacture).
Differing Manufacturing Techniques: Wound beads have it worse than drawn beads–95% of wound beads have glass disease. This could be because they have a compositional percentage of lime that is less stable.
Differing Colors: Black, red, and blue are the most disease-ridden. O’Hern looked through the museum database and found that the entries with the most “glass disease” indicated had blue beads. Blue beads are very clearly the “winner” of the glass disease competition, followed by red and black.
Treatment Techniques: Here’s where it gets even more interesting. The conservation literature and posts on the Objects Specialty Group list serve debate the use of three solvents to remove the salts on glass disease: water alone, ethanol alone, and a 1:1 water:ethanol mix. By comparing the 1999 survey to her own results, O’Hern capitalized on real-time aging to observe how each solvent mixture fares over time. Water-cleaned beads had a 50% rate of glass disease return; water:ethanol-cleaned had a slightly higher than 50% rate of return; ethanol-cleaned had the least amount of return at just under 50%. However, when looking at the beads cleaned with ethanol over the same time period as those cleaned with 1:1 water:ethanol (removing the very oldest treatments), the rate of return for glass disease falls to 40%.
(Note: Acetone has also been listed as a solvent for cleaning glass beads, but since the NMAI doesn’t use acetone, it was not included in this research.)
Other Observations:
1. Measuring pH is essential because beads may look like they don’t have glass disease, but are actually more alkaline. Measuring pH is also quick and easy- cut your pH strip to a small piece, slightly dampen it in deionized water, press it onto the bead for 3 seconds, and then determine any color change in the strip.
2. The most affected beads were those sewn onto hide, but the disease was present when beads were in contact with many other materials as well.
3. Although cleaning with ethanol is a better choice for long-term disease prevention, the solvent chosen should still depend on the substrate around the bead.
Advice from O’Hern:
1. Record treatment materials when removing glass disease.
2. Take BT and AT details of beads so you can easily compare for condition changes in the future.
3. Measure the pH of the beads… and RECORD THE RESULTS.
4. Have consistent monitoring of glass disease.
As an audience member, it’s always exciting to see a project that has results, especially on a topic that is not studied as extensively as it persists. This is definitely a postprint worth visiting for more details and results.
For other examples (and some “good” photographic examples), visit Ellen Carrlee’s project “What’s that White Stuff?” that she and (then WUDPAC graduate intern) Christa Pack reported on in Ellen’s blog: http://alaskawhitestuffid.wordpress.com/2011/08/09/glass/
42nd Annual Meeting – Joint PSG/WAG Session, May 31, 2014, “Recent Developments in the Evolution of Spring-loaded Secondary Supports for Previously Thinned Panel Paintings”, by Alan Miller and George Bisacca
In his presentation, Alan Miller, Assistant Conservator in Paintings Conservation at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, showcased recent developments of spring-loaded secondary supports attached to the back of panel paintings.
He began by reviewing how usual 19th and 20th century treatment of warped panel paintings involved severe thinning of panels along with the application of wood “cradles” on their backs to straighten them and provide “support”. This portion of the presentation wonderfully complimented Karen French’s earlier talk on the evolution of the structural treatment of panel paintings at the Walters.
As Karen did in the morning, Alan discussed the consequences of past treatments on the panel and its painted surface. New treatment approaches have evolved over the past two decades with the development of flexible supports attached to the back of panels, allowing for the natural curvature of the wood and its movement in response to changes in relative humidity. Specific consideration was given to previously thinned panels, very vulnerable once their cradle is removed. Alan provided a review of the development of the spring mechanisms they developed with George Bisacca these past years, referring to the Getty Conservation Institute’s panel paintings initiative (link: http://getty.edu/conservation/our_projects/education/panelpaintings/panelpaintings_component1.html)
The presentation was generously illustrated with images of the various spring mechanisms developed at both the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro (ISCR) and later by Bisacca and Miller, explaining the pros and cons of each. For instance, the earlier conical spring designed at the Istituto allowed for much movement but required thickness of the wooden strainer attached to the back of the panel painting, an issue in terms of flexibility of the strainer, not to mention weight and volume. On the Met’s most recent strainers, which are much thinner, grooves are cut cross grain and filled with a silicon based material for added flexibility. Miller emphasized the importance of the number and placement of the springs attached to the back of a previously thinned panel.
He listed the criteria established for the development of spring mechanisms specifically designed for previously thinned panels: springs should be as small (contained) as possible to allow for a thin strainer, easy to adjust, economical and re-usable. Most recently their work has focused on a thin laser cut disk spring, associated with a flexible threaded nylon screw, which allows light weight, flexibility and fine adjustment.
This talk provided very valuable information on recent developments in the treatment approach of wooden panels, applicable not only to paintings but possibly to furniture or architectural wooden panels.
42nd Annual Meeting – Wooden Artifacts Group Session, May 29, 2014, “Review and interpretation of X-Rays of construction details of American seating Furniture”, by Gordon Hanlon
In his talk, Gordon Hanlon discussed a project that started at the Museum of Art Boston (MFA) in 2005 around a controversy regarding the date of manufacture of a side chair by Philadelphia furniture maker and carver Benjamin Randolph (1721-1791). In his 1972 book American Chairs, Queen Anne and Chippendale, John Kirk argued that a chair bearing a Randolph label and its mate – both in the Karolik Collection at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston – were out of period. Consequently, both objects were removed from exhibition. Kirk’s analysis was refuted twenty six years later by Philip Zimmerman in an article published in American Furniture, entitled “Labeled Randolph Chairs Rediscovered”, available online at: http://www.chipstone.org/html/publications/1998AF/Zim/1998ZimIndex.html. While the Museum of Fine Arts was preparing for the opening of its new American wing, the Randolph chair was X-rayed to study its joinery. This examination confirmed Philip Zimmerman’s judgment that the chair’s construction was consistent with period manufacture techniques, most likely around 1765-75. This investigation was the start of a much larger campaign of study of chairs’ construction through X-Ray examination.
The MFA collection counts 278 American chairs, from early 17th c. to 1950, allowing for thorough comparison of construction techniques and tool marks associated with joinery. The Furniture laboratory started x-raying chairs as they came into the lab, which worked well in conjunction with the American wing project. One type of chairs did not lend itself well to that type of analysis: painted seats with lead based ground.
When film was used in the initial phase of this project, it was scanned at 300 dpi. The file was then enhanced in photoshop, using for instance the “unsharp mask” tool, then brightness and contrast adjustments. Many other options are of course available to reveal various levels of information on the image. The MFA recently switched to digital X-Ray, which seems to surpass film from Gordon’s point of view.
In order to compare information revealed by the X-Ray images, Gordon made mock-ups of joints and looked at a selection of bits. 36 chairs have been x-rayed so far. A few examples were illustrated in the talk, showing tenon and mortise joints as well as dowels.
To record the data gathered, TMS database showed some limitations, leading the lab to use Filemaker pro. The lab already had experience with this database as they used it for two previous projects: in 2005 for a study of historic fasteners (Chris White), and in 2008 for an investigation of painted furniture (Carola Schuller and Michelle Derrick). Currently Christine Schaette, who also gave a talk during this WAG session, is also using Filemaker pro to record her findings on inscriptions found on furniture. Gordon concluded his talk by inviting his colleagues to share results of their own examination of seats. This is something to investigate for WAG, to hopefully find a way to create a platform for everyone to share X-Rays of chairs.
42nd Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials, May 31, "Retouch Practices Revealed in the Thomas Walther Collection Project" by Lee Ann Daffner
MoMA‘s Thomas Walther collection contains over 340 photographs Walther collected from 1909 to 1949 in Eastern Europe, the United States, and Paris. Many of these photographs will be on exhibition at MoMA between November 08, 2014–April 26, 2015. The departments of Photography and Conservation at MoMA have been collaborating on researching this collection of Modernist photography which will culminate with a publication that will be available in early 2015 and a symposium on December 12, 2014. The results of this collaborative research will also be available on the OBJECT:PHOTO website which will include a timeline of Walther’s life and identification of photographs by location. The research Lee Ann presented at AIC focuses on artists’ working methods, specifically retouching techniques. Retouching can be done to either a print or a negative to enhance effects or mask imperfections. Retouching includes reductive techniques (such as scraping) versus additive techniques (painting, drawing, etc.), and an artist’s discretion to use any of these techniques can inform the viewer about the photographer’s intentions.
Summary by Greta Glaser, Owner of Photographs Conservation of DC
Summary by Greta Glaser, Owner of Photographs Conservation of DC
42nd Annual Meeting – Photographic Materials, May 30, "Preservation of Deborah Luster's One Big Self" by Theresa Andrews
Luster is a Louisiana based artist who began her own career in photography in 1988 after the death of her mother. Both her mother and grandmother were photographers. One Big Self is an artwork comprising 287 4″ x 5″ silver gelatin developed out photographs on aluminum plates, stored in a steel cabinet with three drawers, and a lamp on top of the cabinet to facilitate viewing. The photographs are portraits of Louisiana prison inmates taken between 1998 and 2002. On the back of each metal plate is a personal description of the person in each photograph. The artwork is intended to be interactive, allowing the viewer to handle the photographs and read the inscriptions, seeing the subjects as real people. The metal plates are covered in paint, followed by the gelatin emulsion layer used to print the photographic image which is selenium toned. Creating these plates is very labor intensive, and Luster only manages to produce three to four plates per day. She inscribes the personal information about the inmates on the plates with a dremel tool.
The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA) was faced with the challenging task of displaying One Big Self in the way the artist intended – as an interactive work – after it was acquired in 2003. The security and physical preservation of the photographs were the two biggest threats to the work. The piece ended up being displayed alone in a room with one museum guard on duty at all times, which seemed appropriate in the context of the artwork’s subject matter. It was decided that only 200 plates would be displayed at any time, and twenty portraits were randomly selected to never be displayed. The plates that have been on display have indeed seen changes. Some plates have been caught in the drawers and become bent, edges of the emulsion on some plates have been abraded, and some of the plates have yellowed. Although the artist is dismayed at learning about the yellowing, the cost and time of replacing each plate as it becomes too worn to be viewed makes reprinting each portrait an inefficient solution. Out of the total 287 plates, excepting the 20 that will never be displayed, only 200 are on display at any given time, so 67 plates can still be swapped with any plates that become too damaged for exhibition.
Summary by Greta Glaser, Owner of Photographs Conservation of DC
The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art (SFMoMA) was faced with the challenging task of displaying One Big Self in the way the artist intended – as an interactive work – after it was acquired in 2003. The security and physical preservation of the photographs were the two biggest threats to the work. The piece ended up being displayed alone in a room with one museum guard on duty at all times, which seemed appropriate in the context of the artwork’s subject matter. It was decided that only 200 plates would be displayed at any time, and twenty portraits were randomly selected to never be displayed. The plates that have been on display have indeed seen changes. Some plates have been caught in the drawers and become bent, edges of the emulsion on some plates have been abraded, and some of the plates have yellowed. Although the artist is dismayed at learning about the yellowing, the cost and time of replacing each plate as it becomes too worn to be viewed makes reprinting each portrait an inefficient solution. Out of the total 287 plates, excepting the 20 that will never be displayed, only 200 are on display at any given time, so 67 plates can still be swapped with any plates that become too damaged for exhibition.
Summary by Greta Glaser, Owner of Photographs Conservation of DC